CRP.PD.No.1304/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 04.02.2022

Delivered on 18.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

CRP.PD.No.1304/2019 & CMP.No.8523/2019

S.Sri Sagana

..

Petitioner

Versus

K.Padmavathi

.. Respondent

Prayer:

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 21.12.2018

made in IA.No.727/2018 in OS.No.99/2018 on the file of the learned

District Munsif, Palladam.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel

For Respondent

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.1304/2019

ORDER

(1)

The revision petitioner / defendant has preferred the above Civil

Revision Petition against the order dated 21.12.2018 made in

IA.No.727/2018 in OS.No.99/2018 on the file of the learned

District Munsiff, Palladam dismissing the petition filed under

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

(2)

The respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.99/2018 for permanent

injunction restraining the defendant or her authorised persons from

interfering with her right to enter the partnership firm or looking

after the administration as a partner holding 50% shares in the

partnership firm and from evicting the plaintiff otherwise than due

process of law. Contending that the Partnership Firm at hand is an

unregistered Firm, the Revision Petitioner/defendant filed an

application in IA.No.727/2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, in

the above mentioned suit praying for rejection of plaint as the suit

is barred by law under Section 69[2] of the Partnership Act, 1932.

(3)

The said application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant was

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.1304/2019

dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the above

Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

(4)

The issue that is required to be decided in this revision petition is

whether the plaint in the suit in OS.No.99/2018 is liable to be

rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as the Partnership Firm is

an unregistered Firm. It is to be noted that though the plaint was

sought to be rejected by quoting Section 69[2] of the Partnership

Act,1932, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] this Court is of the

view that it would be appropriate that the objection should be

under Section 69[1] of the Act.

(5)

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition

are as follows.

(6)

The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition, as plaintiff, filed the

suit in OS.No.99/2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif,

Palladam, seeking a comprehensive prayer for permanent

injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the

plaintiff's right to enter the Firm, to look after the administration

and to conduct the business as a partner holding 50% shares and

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.1304/2019

for restraining the defendant from evicting her otherwise than by

due process of law. It is the case of the plaintiff that a Partnership

Deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on

22.02.2015 to carry on business under the name and style of

M/s.S.P.AQUA for conducting business in water purification. It

was stated that while parents of the defendant agreed to spend for

construction of building, the plaintiff undertook to do all other

works relating to business.

(7)

From the plaint it is admitted that the building in which the

Partnership Firm carries on its business, belonged to the parents of

the defendant/revision petitioner. It is also admitted by the

plaintiff that the parents of the defendant/revision petitioner died

after the Partnership Firm was constituted and the defendant

became the absolute owner of the property as legal heir. It is

relevant to refer to paragraphs 29, 37 to 39 of the plaint, which are

extracted for convenience:-

''29/nkYk; gpujpthjp jw;bghGJ epWtdj;ij tpl;L

4

https://www.